It's weird to me that most don't realize the Middle East and many Old World places that appear less 'developed' had people there for much much longer than the "newer' worlds. To me I figured they should have solved many of the problems of the world before the new. Think, for instance how when the European society clashed with North American Natives, who were still in a relatively 'newer' state still just not to far from their pyramid building and full settlement phase of civil evolution.
As such, I don't think that shuffling people around to better places solves problems. We need to figure out how to help those places they are coming from to develop with better economies.
Another oddity is how the same people who demand for MORE immigration ironically also defends the Aboriginal rights to segregate and isolated societies in agreement that 'we' stole their land. Yet isn't this the same kind of argument some here make for fearing the immigrant? ...stealing their jobs, their culture, etc. There's a lot of inconsistency on this.
I agree that the problem is economic. It is also a problem of birth-control that 'we' think is some kind of human right to personal choice over the whole. Every birth is a bio-sack of matter that takes up another part of the Earth's limited supply and acts as entities that try to capitalize without limits as though it is alright for us to 'own' without limits. Money as debt is a form of potential stored energy. So we are not only a sack of energy per each person being born, but a vacuum that tries to both steal and store as much of the energy supply of the world for ourselves. And when we run out of that source (money), we have to take it out elsewhere in the form of giving birth. These are our major problems that directly relate to these political issues.

And to me, this is all over the place.
My point is that the 'cause' of these terrorist acts are never correct and so bounce back and forth between trading who will be the next predator and victim rather than deal with that real problem.
The real problem ORIGINATES and is exacerbated by poverty or some real factor of neglect. And when those who out of starving for necessity can't get the attention they need for trying in the normal whispers they are expected to communicate their concerns with, they BLOW UP. And this IS normal and expected.
The media's reaction to which I even opted to open this thread about here in Canada has today a closed mind with common interests and has begun to allow more and more of their reporting staff to be openly expressive with another common in-sync condemnation of acts with CONCLUSIVE language about who is at fault without concern for proof. This is circumstantial evidence of a coordinated interest that you would normally expect to have competitive variation of views.
WHEN there are opposing views to this kind of cooperative unproven accusations being presented, the stories are selected in a way that purposely presents the caricature of the most vial an NON-representative average of the people. In this way, the very media presentations (and likely the media owners hidden behind a protected shell of corporate secrecy) are themselves CONSPIRING to shape who they FEEL is the real 'conspirators' with specificity and actually BECOME the cause as they openly LABEL a specific subset of society as a real genetic and ethnic extreme.
This last incident let out the emotive conscious thinking of the media reporters (not just who they are opting to favor reporting) that indicated their own personal bias against their perceived enemy CLASS: right-wing extremists. They reported an increase in 'right-wing' extremism that they, with faithful certainty, assures us IS the problem with the counter EXTREME suggestion to counter: MORE CENSORSHIP!
How does the media get on board with favoring 'censorship' UNLESS they themselves are being run by some INTEREST in common?
Besides the variety of views being presented, the nature of media to be supporting an increase in censorship.....even on their 'forums' against public disapproval, suggests with MORE 'certainty' that their own 'certainty' of what they report is NOT to be challenged, censored, and proof of them being aligned with their own EXTREMISTS behind the scenes.
The communications media is not a 'right' of specific people to OWN. That would be like someone dictating whether I can breath the air I do because they claim to OWN it. And that IS TERRORISM!
When groups of normally unaffiliated peoples of an abused class are targeted, often more and more hideously and indirect as possible, the idea is to ENTICE segregation, like those settlement walls and barricades in the West Bank of Palestine by Israelis, this forces those victims to BE more extreme to overcome such oppression themselves.
The rhetoric of those in power reverse this role and why they NEED those 'apparent' victim-class minorities to BLOW UP. When one blows up, they are reacting in an overtly violent way and APPEARS more violent than the ones who manipulated their intention to make them blow up. This, when reported BY the people holding a targeted class hostage, do it in a way that hides or distributes accountability of themselves but THEN has a JUSTIFICATION to directly RID those they were holding hostage as they can point a finger at them and say, "SEE, THEY are the violent extremists".
What do you think will occur WHEN the stereotyped class, out of now having a common reason to conspire themselves for being violated as a class, will do when THEY are possibly the next ones in power? The cycle will not stop. The more OVERTLY violent extremists suggests THEY are the ones NOT IN POWER. But only the hidden extremes IN POWER can be controlled: by preventing them from CENSORING and ISOLATING the 'weak' opposite extremists.
The underlying causes cannot be solved by equalizing through FAVORITISM nor HATE of select groups that are NOT relevant to the problem. And when the focus is aimed towards a subset of the victim class with some larger plurality (for or against) based on superficial standards, you don't solve the problem itself. You just trade push the problems onto more isolated individuals who become the next oppressed class based on the defining factors of that superficial classification.

Then, without the rhetoric,
Let X = "One is a terrorist"
Let Y = "One is a right-winger (extremist)"
Then the assumption that X exists and is caused by Y's existence becomes,
(If Y then X)
and X
Therefore Y
Do you see the logical error? [Note that Y implies X existed as a cause; You cannot interpret that "X causes Y " to mean "If X then Y"]

So are you agreeing that IF what I said was correct, the apparent condition of our society is CONTRADICTORY?
If you disagree to this as a reality, then which specific case is true and how can you affirm the violation is causally of one specific side AND not the others?

NO, the hatred of assuming the fault uniquely is DUE to 'right-wing' conspirators (as though they ONLY have such power?) while simultaneously enhancing their OWN (yours too?) conspiracy AND doing so with a favor for things like deplatforming, isolating, or penalizing those on the label of "hate criminal" with the expectation that the targeted class must ACCEPT their sacrifice for YOU!
Favoring a censor class of people of your own group identity is as equally 'right-wing' in mind but you are clever enough to transfer this upon the disenfranchised poor of your own class (for a discrimination against the poor in general of your own racial and beneficial background.) If you want to sacrifice, sacrifice yourself, not others OF the supposed beneficial RACE/ETHNICITY.
I don't need to be treated as a scapegoat for your own families ancestral discrimination or, if non-majority race, your specific ethnically PURE group. I'm saying the left has more numbers BUT the numbers of those not of the majority or of the minority of the majority who benefit by transferring their own debt upon the whole to hide your own recognized fault.

The left AND right (and center?) extremes all contribute to the cause for selfish reasons. The 'group' identity is taking precedence over individual identity.
They only differ in tactics.
The left: People are numbers only and the future is more significant than the present.
The problem with this is that if you are not IN that 'number', you don't merely get sacrificed, you get scapegoated. Also, given the left is more secular, the only common denominator is to that future uniquely, especially if they have lots of kids or family they hope to see fare well in the future. This latter point is also true of the right but the difference is that the left are not run by individuals nor a collection of individuals (democratic) but by the collective religious, and culturally biased, ethnocentric would-be right-wingers if in power. The intention is to destroy the 'weaker' minority GROUPS. One consolidating factor is to find a common target class, usually male and more specifically white with the narrowed feature of being stereotypically treated AS their own 'collective'.
The right: People are those most proximate to you (like family) and the present conditions are all that can matter.
This to me is also made up of the present groups in the left I just mentioned. But these are those who are more representative of the non-ethnically defined groups or to the unique group identity (variable cultures depending on country, time, or place). This group type (the right) are generally RUN by more wealthy independent individuals or large and strong segregate cultures in power. They argue with less concern to be 'rational' only because there is no moral reality above what we make of it. Thus they tend to appropriate a less logical 'god' but stricter religion. This is to justify without a desire to defend their right of freedom to religious and cultural identity where they are benefactors.
BUT the ones who are identified OF this class who aren't successful and are scapegoated as the Number that gets sacrificed by the left become the ones who get propped up as the extreme, are the only ones who actually get targeted by all groups. Thus the poor on this side are being FORCED to associate with the side that at least does not discriminate against them BY racial and ethnic based laws.
Th middle: The average moderate desire to preserve family AND their particular group, and favor both the present and future conditions.
The error on this majority are about the stupidity to 'feel' by popular trends in their numbers AS individuals or groups with a positive belief that there is still an overall balance if we can only all just be friends. It's a naivete more common in children or to the average who have a disdain against both spectra of wealth.
The impoverished classes are where the fighting is all derived from. If you are a minority ethnicity ('minor' by plurality definitions), you are forced to be center or left depending on which external identity all the arrogant cultural supremacists impose upon them. The problem is cyclic and can be stopped but requires redressing Population Controls of some sort, A pro-logical approach to enhance people's understanding (rather than just the empirical-only restricted thinkers who lack logical clarity.) You need both but cannot deem closure on the concept of non-closure. Distribution of wealth needs to be maintained AT SOME minimal and GRADUAL earned process for EACH person regardless of background, and a TOP LIMIT to power and wealth that penalized ONLY those who are directly benefiting (not the CLASS defined by group associations) from their wealth. SACRIFICES should not be distributed to the whole for the debt of those PARTICULAR peoples hiding behind apparent support for 'diversity'.
I think these along with technology needs to be attended to are what the general types of solutions that can be used to get change to occur for the better....for ALL.
So please you select group-identifiers of culture, stop forcing your own powers to rule FOR the individual. Keep your magical beliefs to your own and stop forcing your kids into the same associations. Culture/ethnicity is the cause of problems, not those allowing their children to CHOOSE their culture and identity. We do not OWN our parent's artistic talents any more than their faults.

That's kind of why I was asking. I don't use those media. But I do use forums that actually have real depth. Yet while I know there are some people who 'troll', for the most part, I find people on these forums relatively non-discriminatory on average. We may disagree to some things, but where is this 'hate' speech online supposedly coming from? AND, if so, who could 'moderate' this without themselves being granted 'supreme' powers over others in ways that even those who act like assholes cannot hide?
No, I'm not asking to 'rat' on sites because I think they should be allowed to exist. I'm making point about the problem. Let's say, that you are correct about knowing specific sites that DO invest in these extremes. Are you protecting the views they hold or to their right to freely speak in their own choice of assembly? And IF you were against such sites, you can also CLAIM that YOU KNOW they exist, but can't tell me because you, being in some potential power to 'moderate', have deleted their existence from the internet!
Either way, moderation (censorship and censure) are equal means to abuse and why they cannot assert some CAUSE of the terrorism as due to something WE are not privileged to judge the evidence of for ourselves. It's a lose-lose, and in fact WORSENS the problem because such moderation VIOLATES those they want to isolate. THEY are the CAUSE of the abuse, is my theory, NOT some right-wing extremists conspiring out of some preferential initial causation of their own delusions. That is, those who DO become 'extreme' on the right TOO are victims of some potential cause: being continually persecuted for some crimes they don't commit UNTIL they blow up and give in. If you're required to pay the price for a crime you didn't commit, who is better to 'survive' this insanity, the ones who ACCEPT their cages or the ones who EMBRACE the behaviors they are accused of?
It is cyclic and never-ending when the REAL causes aren't sought out. The real causes are just to INCONVENIENT to deal with: like poverty, isolation, abuse by neglect, etc. We don't need to authoritatively protect people prior to warranted acts. And interpreting 'warrant' by collective associations is MORE terroristic.

What was the context though? And HOW do we interpret that context in light of just what someone says without the public being allowed access to determine it?
My beef is as follows: if we permit censure and censorship of online forums, it requires some 'moderators' who have exclusive political power themselves to discriminate without accountability. Our very own media is literally all agreeing with this here where even the 'reporters' are now expressing their own clear and open biases. Yet if they have the sole power to opine at the extended power to censor (and censure), we are forced to require an unusual degree of faith of some specially divined moderator-class of people. Who are these very SUPREME beings that seem to divine upon who is the REAL enemy of society.
This arrogance IS the CAUSE of the 'terrorism'. We have no way to determine if the very people in power to present what examples of 'terrorism' isn't a function of their own universally aligned conspirators themselves of which they are 'wiser' to assert of the others.
The news here in Saskatchewan last night, for instance, tells us of a new law that permits police to have absolute powers to investigate WITHOUT WARRANT anyone presumed LINKED to a missing person's case! This example law was derived in relation to an uprising of people asserting the police were ignoring a 'conspiracy' of ignorance to missing aboriginal women en mass. While the FACT of some horrific potential crime may exist by some perpetrator targeting them specifically, this is NOT established. Yet now the kind of PREDETERMINATION of the causes imply that some anti-native hatred is the cause when this is only a correlation without even knowing OF a crime let alone any specific perpetrators.
And as you see, now this proposed law is one that is utilizing the PRESUMPTIONS of discrimination to justify a new and worse kind of INTOLERATION: a police-class privileged to be 'moderators' without warrant.

I know this may seem a stupid question for how others may be involved in posting more when this things occur. But I want to know WHAT the supposed "increase in right-wing supremacists" are saying that is so full of hate and WHERE this is occurring? I'm not implying it isn't true but I tend to miss the specific quotes said by some larger plurality. I know that the CBC has used this excuse to justify preventing commenting on any 'minority' issues of contention.
To me, the media feeds this as much as anything. |Not being signed up with Facebook or some other places, I can't tell. Can some people inform me.
I'm concerned by how the media "reporters" are as much chiming in to lower the bar of counter-discrimination to 'hate speech' to be even anything 'subtle' or inferred.
I blame the rise of these groups as coming FROM the very left (of which I share many views on) because of HOW they are arrogantly becoming absurdly sensitive to micro-movements. Talk about walking on broken glass now. If they think that speaking MORE to protect SPECIFIC groups and not INDIVIDUALS OR THE WHOLE, this will be certain to only get worse. I can't believe the stupidity.
I won't say anything further as it only ;makes the issue MORE notable in the consciousness of those of any background who becomes more and more isolated.

Yeah, I agree that it is unlikely. And this is precisely what Karl Marx meant about political cycles in history. As time goes on, we are going to be divided more and more on a Constitution that dictates selective favors to specific people without a hope unless another revolution can overthrow it by force.

? who knows?
I'm against our constitutional protections of the separate Catholic school system, but the confusion of the challengers is to why they even think that the Catholic school system wasn't defaulted to this bias.??? I raised this with a skeptic group who also don't notice that the problem lies with the constitution and has to be addressed there.

...be preferentially treated by forcing non-Catholics to either pay out of their own pocket or leave to a public school?....
Here's the recent issue on this for here in Saskatchewan: https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/watch-live-court-continues-to-hear-saskatchewan-appeal-of-school-funding
or, for the CBC crowd preferences: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/govt-sask-catholic-schools-make-case-appeal-hearing-1.5051334

Well that was part of the debate in the show. The SVU staff were split on this. They always deal with sexual abuses, often of more women than men, and they knew this particular cop personally, knowing his attitude was somewhat like this. There seems to be a 'trick' with the plot too. The ones most strongly willing to lie on the stand defaulted to a sort of bias FOR women as a class. But this proves they are counter-discriminating against men because should they proceed. The lie was about his character and whether he was seen to ever be abusive with the truth being in the negative. This suggests they then believe a particular bias for any women in the relationship to be completely 'innocent' in all cases.
That is, if this were reversed as a case, there would be no controversy. If a man killed his wife for being verbally or indirectly abusive in any way, and the man admitted that she never physically harmed her, the case would be quick to resolve in court regardless.
So the show was presenting the present bias to have distinct 'trust' laws exclusively between the sexes where these don't have anything intrinsically distinct regarding their physical sex. Both can BE 'criminal' in mind and action but they only look at the statistic norms of which sex does more of what crime than the other to base their specific-sex laws in bias to the kind of crime the majority of that sex do. In reality though, the culture defines the qualities they accept ....such that men are larger and more physical, women are smaller and more vulnerable. But there can be a variety of role-differences if the partners on average chose those of variability without the stereotypical roles. The ones who choose the partners that fit to the stereotype that creates the imbalance should be cognizant that they contributed to the statistical imbalance of men being more abuse on average. So the women are as EQUAL at fault as well as the men for all kinds of crimes. And while this variation and acceptance is occurring now, why is the extremism occurring to favor women by default over men in law?

I think that this show, among its older relatives is one that attempts to cover real stories and issues through entertainment ....BUT is most worthy of discussion here in a political forum. [I think it could be its own subforum given its subjects are always relative to today's issues. ...or maybe a subsection on "Law & Order" or "Justice" or "Legal Issues" ??]
Anyways, I just caught up on my DVR for the latest SVU titled, "Part 33" (S20.E14 Air date Feb 7, 2019). In this episode, a cop's wife had killed her husband and attempted to defend herself as a victim of 'abuse' but admits of no physical nor sexual abuse in the least. The SVU unit though had become contentious within its ranks because some wanted to lie on the belief that this woman was justified in her action merely based on this cop's general known verbal abusive character. [the unit knew the cop and his wife] Some strongly disagreed given the form of indirect abuse is not valid as abuse in the eyes of justice.
I thought this episode pointed out something interesting about how many think that trusting women's accusations should be defaulted to, especially today in both Canada and the U.S. regardless of her apparent situation or of the male who is being accused. I wondered if anyone here has seen the episode (or suggest you watch it) and tell me which side of the different position you hold. The specific controversy is not merely about trust but about INDIRECT ABUSE. It is hard to catch this form even if it can actually be more devious in nature. So the question I'm asking in relation to this episode is this:
Should anyone be granted serious consideration of innocence for acting counter-abusive of one who is indirectly abusive? ...like strong verbal abuse ...or like enticing others to harm another intentionally, etc?